Skip to main content
Glama
rapidoddsapi

rapidoddsapi-mcp

Official
by rapidoddsapi

get_odds

Fetch live bookmaker odds for a sport and compare prices across bookmakers and market types.

Instructions

Current bookmaker odds for one sport, live from RapidOddsAPI.

Use this for any question about what a bookmaker is paying right now, or for comparing prices across bookmakers, rather than answering from memory.

sport is required and must be an id from list_sports. There is no option for every sport at once.

Cost: number of market types x ceil(number of bookmakers / 5) credits, charged only when games come back. The defaults, one market across five bookmakers, cost 1 credit. Both arguments multiply, so nine market types across eighteen bookmakers is 36 credits. Widen only when asked to.

market_types defaults to head_to_head, the plain winner market. Soccer has no head_to_head because of the draw, so use head_to_head_3_way or draw_no_bet there. Get exact keys from list_sports(sport).

bookmakers defaults to five that cover the sport's region. To use others, take the names from list_sports(sport), which lists every feed available. Never guess a name: an unknown one returns no prices rather than an error, so guessing is indistinguishable from the sport having no odds, and each guess can cost credits.

Names are odds feeds, not brands. "Ladbrokes" is the feed that also carries Neds, "Betmakers" carries the 26 brands running on it, so a brand name that is not itself a feed returns nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sportYes
bookmakersNo
market_typesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses costs ('Cost: number of market types x ceil(number of bookmakers / 5) credits'), default behavior ('market_types defaults to head_to_head'), failure modes ('an unknown one returns no prices rather than an error'), and feed semantics ('Names are odds feeds, not brands'). This goes well beyond basic descriptions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured in short, information-dense paragraphs, each covering a distinct aspect (purpose, usage, cost, parameters, naming). No sentence is filler; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all critical aspects: live data source, parameter semantics, defaults, costs, error behavior, and feed-vs-brand distinction. With an output schema present and no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for usage and side effects, and it fulfills that responsibility comprehensively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: sport must come from list_sports; market_types defaults to head_to_head with sport-specific variants; bookmakers default to five regional feeds and warns against guessing names. Concrete examples like 'Ladbrokes is the feed that also carries Neds' add significant meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Current bookmaker odds for one sport, live from RapidOddsAPI,' clearly stating the verb (get) and resource (current odds for one sport). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on live odds and comparing bookmakers, not results, sports list, arbitrage, or value bets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for any question about what a bookmaker is paying right now, or for comparing prices across bookmakers, rather than answering from memory.' It also gives operational guidance like 'sport is required and must be an id from list_sports' and cost warnings. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or provide when-not conditions (e.g., historical odds), so it falls short of the highest bar.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rapidoddsapi/rapidoddsapi-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server